Pages

A longtime rural resident, I use my 60 plus years of life learning to opinionate here and elsewhere on the “interweb” on everything from politics to environmental issues. A believer in reasonable discourse rather than unhelpful attacks I try to give positive input to the blogesphere, so feel free to comment upon rural issues or anything else posted here. But don’t be surprised if you comments get zapped if you are not polite in your replys.

Friday, March 29, 2013

You have all seen those Taxpayer funded Ads extolling the Harper Regimes new legislation to require double hulled oil tankers in Canadian waters as if its something new that will prevent spills. As is usual it is all spin and lies, in a recent article Elizabeth May debunks that statement and a number of others from this unprincipaled regime......

Yesterday Harper’s ministers announced we would find these new
measures in Bill C-57, the just tabled for First Reading Safeguarding
Canada’s Seas and Skies Act. I have read C-57. This now takes top
honours in the on-going competition for most over-hyped legislative
title. I have read it and it is essentially a housekeeping act. It deals
with the skies, through changes to inspections of aviation accidents
and aeronautic indemnities. There is no environmental aspect to the
“skies” component. Then there are the amendments related to “seas.” The
Marine Act is amended to change the date for the approval of a new
director of a port authority. The only oil-spill related components are
in the Marine Liability Act. The act is brought into compliance with the
2010 International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage
in connection with the Carriage and Noxious Substances by Sea. So,
nothing about double-hulled tankers.
The reality is that since 1993, all new tankers are required, by
international agreement, to be double-hulled. According to a great
summary on the issue by Mitch Anderson in September 27, 2010 The Tyee,
(“No, Double Hull Tankers Do Not Ensure ‘Total Safety,’”) there were
only 50 single-hulled tankers operating anywhere on the planet that
year. None were allowed in North American waters.
Has the virtual removal of single-hulled tankers ended the risk of
oil spills? Not actually. Despite the exuberance of Joe Oliver’s
rhetoric, double-hulls possess no magical powers. Their use has not
ended the risk of accidents and oil spills.
Collisions with barges and freighters have caused oil spills of
millions of litres in ports around the world. Double hulls can be sliced
open and oil spills out.
The Transport Canada website was prettied up for the announcement,
with a “fact sheet” transparently designed to create the impression the
British Columbia coast is routinely plied by hundreds of super-tankers.
Here are some of the claims from the Transport Canada website:

Oil tankers have been moving safely and regularly along Canada’s West Coast since the 1930’s.

In 2009-2010, there were about 1500 tanker movements on the West Coast....

A federal moratorium off the coast of BC applies strictly to oil and
natural gas exploitation and development, not to tanker storage or
movement.

I think most readers will not need any help from me debunking that
bunk. The 1972 moratorium was precisely against oil tanker traffic along
BC’s north coast. Moreover, the 1500 tanker “movements” refers to what
Transport Canada defines as “every time a ship (or vessel) commences or
ceases to be underway.
Underway is defined as "a vessel that is not at anchor, or made fast
to the shore, or aground.” And by tanker, they mean “a cargo ship fitted
with tanks for carrying liquid in bulk.” Not oil tankers. In 2011, the
total number of oil tankers in and out of the Port of Vancouver was 82.
None of them were super-tankers and none of them operate without risk.
In the on-going war of words to get super-tankers carrying bitumen
crude into our waters, it is amazing any media covered Joe Oliver’s
announcement as if anything meaningful had been added to the discussion.Elizabeth May is the Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands and Leader of the Green Party of Canada.First printed in the Island Tides.

Friday, March 15, 2013

I recently viewed a TVO
Agenda segment on Rural Ontario which among
other things discussed “What is rural Ontario”, something which I
and many others have tried
to define unsuccessfully. The guests included
freelance writer, farmer and former editor of our local paper Jim
Merriam whose articles about rural issues I always enjoy when I
occasionally see a Sun Times paper with his column in it. Also
present was Rob Hannam, Chair of the Rural Ontario Institute and two
other guests. As always with Steve Pakin hosting an interesting
discussion ensued which I will not try and outline here except to say
that despite being unable to define 'rural' there was consensus on a
couple of issues several of which I have written about on these pages
time and time again.

Those being Infrastructure, Internet
and Communications and the benefits that rural communities bring to
our urban counterparts, not the least of which is the agricultural
input to our food basket. One guest pointed out that rural is as much
a state of mind as a place, it is as perhaps indicated in the term
used to describe what farmers do “cultural”, this I feel is very
much a good description and perhaps why we out here in the country
have such difficulty getting our point of view across to urban
residents and politicians and why we likewise have difficulty with
understanding the city folks point of view. There is a considerable
cultural difference.

As the guests all agreed the answer is
in communications,
communications,
communications
– but how we as rural communities enable that dialogue is the
difficulty, once again our guests agreed .... they had no suggestions
as to how to improve the conversation between the two solitudes. As
regular readers will know I have previously suggested that for rural
areas where considerable travel is often necessary for face to face
gathering to discuss such issues the internet could be a great tool,
unfortunately it seems that rural folks have yet to realize the power
of this tool. Whether that is due to no having a suitable forum in
which to participate, the general feeling of 'I cannot make a
difference' that currently infects our society,a lack of a decent
internet connection in many rural areas or some other roadblock is
hard to tell. I did note that Jim at least did have a high speed
connection that enabled him to participate by skype, I can but dream
of such and whether it would even be affordable or have very limited
volume limits if it was available is also debatable, I cannot even
review the ½ hr TVO program without hogging much of my monthly
allocation and even then not as a streaming video due to speed
limitations.

As Steve pointed out there is a
perception out there that say rural folks are such a small (and ever
declining) percentage of our population that the political machine
and the urban majority may not need to bother with those 'whining
farmers and country bumpkins”. It is difficult for those whom I
have previously identified as “The
Forgotten Minority” to counter these
perceptions when that old country adage “the squeaky wheel gets the
grease” is so true and there are so many wheels falling off across
Ontario. That the panel were all optimistic as the the future of our
rural and farm communities was good to hear, I just wish I could
agree with them.

Before I wind up this post I must give
the Rural Ontario Institute a bit of a plug for their efforts to
provide links to rural and agricultural information on their web
site. They have so many links that it is almost overwhelming but the
Rural
Ontario Reader and their
links page will give a good starting point for
those researching or seeking more information on rural issues. I
just wish that the efforts to create an interactive forum for rural
issues started by the FWIO and supported by the ROI or something
similar was a better and more widely used method of allowing rebuttal
and dialogue on rural issues.

Tuesday, March 5, 2013

One of the problems with the power derived from industrial wind
farms is that it is not always available when needed, however the
opposite is also true as it can be pumping out power when it is not
needed. In order to regulate this over supply of power it now seems
we are going to pay those companies who already receive a higher
price for their output than the current market price to NOT generate
power!

“Ontario
wind power companies have reached an agreement that will curb
electricity output from wind turbines when there’s surplus power on
the grid. In return, the companies will get compensated for lost
output, within certain limits.”
“Until now, wind power has had almost unrestricted access to the
power grid, under rules designed to encourage the development of
renewable power in Ontario. Wind power is especially tricky to deal
with, because there’s a lot of it and the wind often blows
strongest overnight or on weekends, when demand is low. “
“As more wind power floods onto the grid, the combination of
wind and nuclear sometimes leads to power surpluses, forcing Ontario
to sell power to its neighbours at a loss, or even pay them to take
it.”
“The IESO had estimated that coping with surplus power
production will cost Ontario’s power system up to $200 million a
year if market rules don’t change. “

This in addition to to the cost of keeping enough capacity from
other sources on standby to pick up the load when the wind is not
blowing but the demand is high. Until such time as this type of power
generation is linked to storage solutions such as
pumped water reservoirs and hydro generation it will never be a
viable means of supplying electricity when needed.

I note that such arrangements also exist with
nuclear generating stations however in that their power is
available 24 / 7 / 365 and they receive far less per MW for their
power the two cannot be considered similar arrangements.

The Rant

I am a Canadian by choice not chance.
I am a country boy not a city slicker.
I have a dog not a doorbell, a collie not a rottweiler, a friend not a pet.
I walk in the woods not the streets.
I have a truck not a car, a barn not a garage, a septic system not a sewer.
I live on a gravel road not a paved road.
I have dial up not high speed, a mailbox not a letterbox, a yard light not a street light.
I shoot photo’s not trophies.
I am old not young, married not single, poor not rich, over taxed not over sexed.
I heat with wood not gas,
I respect my neighbors not numb-sculls, police not politicians , hikers not hunters.
I am a RURAL Canadian.